Sweet tooth

ideas

28 August 2009

Saw this on my way to work this morning (on Waterloo Bridge):I sometimes wish that they wouldn't make it so easy to find out what these things are about. Anyways, Legible London is about making the city easier to navigate by foot - which I'm all for as a keen public transport dodger/urban walker (you like that?).

I've always loved the idea of putting things on the pavement. I may have written about it before, but my friend Tansy and I once devised a plan to spraypaint a compass marked with north outside every tube exit to help orient people leaving the station. We obviously never got round to it, as with most of our plans, but a couple of years ago they did talk about doing something similar in NYC, but I don't know if that happened.

But if there are going to be more people walking, we also need a code of conduct. London walkers please say 'Thank you' when someone stops to let you pass.

24 August 2009

I often wonder whether Clarks still has the amazing foot measuring machine of my youth - I realise it would be easy to go and check, but that is exactly why I haven't done it. It actually made shopping for school shoes an exciting experience for me as a kid, and probably gave my parents validation that they were buying properly fitted shoes for their little princess (we were all princesses the year they released Magic Steps).

Anyway, the point I meant to make is that correctly fitted shoes are important. Even as adults. However we only really make an effort to buy correctly fitted shoes when they're for a specific activity, i.e. running.

I recenly went through the saga of buying walking boots (for this). What I learnt is that every shoe manufacturer has a different fitting, so depending on what type of foot you have different makes will fit you. I remember from buying running shoes that most manufacturers cater for different types of feet within their range. This is all very well for shoes that we don't mind being ugly as sin (sometimes I think the manufacturers do this on purpose, so you are forced to buy correctly fitting shoes), but what about the shoes we wear for the majority of our day - shouldn't we be paying the same attention to making sure they fit properly? Or at least as close as possible to proper?

In a world where companies are increasingly catering to large niches (i.e. petite clothing ranges for shorter people) why haven't the shoe companies got involved by offering width fittings? I can only think of New Balance who do this. If you're creating a 'bespoke' shoe, i.e. Nike ID, you should be able to pick the width fitting surely?

And while we're on the subject, can someone start to make boots for people without fat calves?

UPDATE 30/08/2011: Wondering if makers of performance shoes where the fit is the critical benefit make their shoes ugly on purpose so their customers have to choose on fit?

16 August 2009

Saw an in interesting post over on Influx Insights the other day, about how Freshjive are removing branding/logos from all their products (you can read the interview with owner Rick Klotz here). I always thought that the interesting thing about a lot of luxury fashion is that there is no branding on the outside of the clothes. The kudos comes because fashion people are so geeky that they will be able to recognise who you're wearing by what you're wearing. It's interesting to see a brand taking it further, with no branding at all.

Around the time of No Logo I remember there being a brand called No Label (can't find anything on the internetz, sorry), which made canvas shoes with a label that said No Label. I always thought that was a pretty stupid statement to make - it being a label called No Label - but I'm sure some people felt it was a zeitgeisty, ironic and cool statement. But does this box become a logo of sorts? Pic via The Hundreds

A couple of quotes from that Klotz interview: "Throughout the years I’ve become uncomfortable with this business of
branding and brand identity. I’m not the type of person that buys
something for the brand name. I’ve also never done a very good job at
creating a captivating identity to our own brand logo." The cynic in me wonders if this just a savvy marketing ploy for a brand that hasn't built a successful reputation as it would like?

"... when I see kids wearing company
logos it reminds of people who are trying to be a part of a “tribe” or
“gang”, as if they need to be part of something, which seems to go
against the idea of individualism in style."

"It’s really invigorating to approach designing a line WITHOUT the
constrictions of how the logo is gonna be placed or used on the
garments. " Imagine designing an ad without having to consider where to put the logo. Within the market that Freshjive operate in, it's as radical a thought.

It's an interesting case to follow. If you take away the brand and the logo, you are left with just the product. What to do you to your product to make it desirable?

27 July 2009

Ah, the hangover from working in trends - I can't help but love a good buzzword. Came across 'conceptual consumption' in this paper by Dan Ariely and Michael I. Norton. It's short and worth a read, but most of the content has been written about elsewhere.

One thing that really interested me was an idea about how memories influence our consumption; they cite the phenomenon 'whereby people who have truly enjoyed an experience, such as special evening out, sometimes prefer not to repeat it'. On the surface it seems counter-intuitive to how we consume experiences, but Ariely and Norton go on to explain that 'by forgoing repeat visits, they are preserving their ability to consume the pure memory - the concept - of that evening forever, without the risk of polluting it with a less-special evening'. Actually, when you put it like that, we've all been there. Coupled with the amount of repeat visits that haven't lived up to the first that we experience as consumers, it poses quite an interesting question for the entertainment and hospitality sectors in particular. Is this an argument for consistency? It's widely held that the restaurants in the Caprice Holdings stable don't stay on top of the popularity charts for their amazing food, but rather the consistency of quality and service ensures a good time every time.

15 July 2009

I was looking through some old photos the other day (is there a company/teenager you can pay to digitise all your analogue stuff?) and found this:It may not be much to look at, but I was reminded of a what a great laundrette this was. Not only could you wash your clothes, you could have a beer, play some pool and even eat some barbeque while you waited. Death of the laundrette? It doesn't have to be so.

06 July 2009

Went to a LS:N Global network evening last week, where they - ahem - considered 'how and why superlative design will be come the key way to target clients and customers in a post-recessionary market'. I'm not sure that this question was answered, but the evening was really stimulating nonetheless. A couple of bits that I'd never really thought about before:

Paul Austin from Made Thought spoke about treating light as a graphical tool when designing shop interiors. I thought that was really well articulated, and after spending a year under the strip lighting of the Adidas Originals store in Covent Garden, I realise how important it is that someone thinks like this.

I always think of design as something that should be functional, but Libby Sellers believed that 'the idea of functionality [had] changed in the 21st century to respond to emotional need'. It's quite mad to get your head around the idea that creating things that don't excel in a function, but a nice validation for the work coming out of design (and justification for the price tags?).

Lastly Sam Hecht , speaking about making things that last, used the term 'commitment-phobia' to describe the culture for disposable goods. He said something like, 'no form of ownership means no form of responsibility'. I like the idea of responsibility for items, which ties into the stuff about patina that Russell Davies wrote about quite eloquently.

04 July 2009

Went to see Chris Anderson talk about his upcoming book Free at the RSA last week. Neil has a good summary here, so I won't repeat, but there were a couple of other bits and pieces that I liked...

It's quite an old story now, but I like the fact that Microsoft effectively turned a blind eye to piracy in China to make sure that the country grew up Windows-literate. This tied nicely into the idea that 'when you compete with free, you find out what business you are really in'. For Microsoft, Anderson believes this is not so much the software in itself, but the security that if it goes wrong there is someone to call (especially important for businesses). By that reckoning the future business owners of China will opt for the operating system of their youth.

Also in terms of using free in the media - 'cast a broad net with free and tempt with upgrades'. Anderson pointed out that it may seem counter-intuitive to give away your most popular content for free, but this opens up your potential audience. A kind of long tail revenue model where those interested in niche content pay a small amount for the privilege. The more niches you cater for, the higher your income.

He had quite a snappy slide that summarised the things that people would pay for. They were to save time, lower risk, things they love, status and one more that I can't read - it looks like 'if you make pie' but I don't think that's right.

PS. Find the Gladwell thing quite funny. He's been giving away the ccontent of his books on his blogs before publication, and that doesn't seem to hurt his circulation?

30 May 2009

Seeing as banks make the most money off people who are terrible with their money (interest charges, fines, etc) wouldn't it be nice if a week after they've hit their overdraft limit the bank gave them a tenner treat.

I know, I know, why gift the bad spenders, they shouldn't be in that mess in the first place, BUT people who are good with their money have the eternal smug glow of being prudent and the gesture wouldn't mean as much to them as it would to the eternally broke. Also, the prudents personally make the banks less money (obviously it's their cash that is being gambled to make more money).

I know that this could never happen for many good reasons including the fact that banks shouldn't be encouraging irresponsible borrowing and spending, but wouldn't it be lovely if they did?

03 April 2009

Just remembered a nudgonomics nugget - try saying that when you're drunk.

Thaler suggested making people consider their energy usage by printing a statement on their energy bill that told them how much energy they used in comparison to their neighbours. Something like, 'you use 10% more energy than people on your street'. He felt that this would shame them into lowering consumption more than just telling them about climate change. I thought that people don't read their bills.

25 January 2009

Quite into the idea of 'democratic exclusivity', services/produces made exclusive by limits rather than status, i.e. a restaurant that takes bookings on a first come, first served basis rather than who you are. Or a random ballot like El Bulli (although when I went to see Ferran Adria talk I found out that half the reservations are saved for people who've eaten there before, which I felt cheated by).

About

One part truth, two parts mixer is a digital notebook for Priyanka/@pristyles. Yes, you've reached another planner's blog - but it's mainly full of random thoughts and pretty pictures.
If you're reading, hello - it's nice to meet you.